There are many dimensions and realities missing from this article. There is a lot to be understood about the situations in the source countries that requires a completely different line of thinking to simply flinging open the doors of the west. Many are young men from countries including Algeria, Eritrea, Nigeria, Egypt, Lebanon and Iran who feel bleak and desperate at the way their own countries are being mismanaged and feel unable to see a future. Some of their home countries actually try to dissuade them from leaving. I believe there are signs up in Afghanistan telling people to stay and help rebuild the country, Algeria has offered young people (albeit inept) economic incentives to stay, and the new head of Nigeria has tried to build a vision saying this is the only country we have, let's build it together. In Eritrea's case, the push factors are a bizarre Stalinist leader who forces the population into lifelong national service. It is sad and alarming to hear them express the fantasies they bring with them to the west, imagining higher education and great jobs are there for the taking. Things an increasing percentage of young in the west are struggling to achieve.

It seems to be a " forest for the trees" confusion here. Susan comes closest to the issue that you folks are overlooking, viz, refugees are the newest effective weapon not requiring purchasing from the high cost arms salesmen. This will cause the countries whose economies are arms production based to react.

"People in fear for their lives run to the nearest safe place, not the richest."
You mean like leaving the Middle East and going to Australia via Malaysia and Indonesia? Or going from Syria to Germany and Sweden?
How many Syrian refugees has Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries taken in in the past few years I wonder?

Since refugees are the collateral damage product of the regime change war economy, one might imagine incentivizing relocation into an decidedly better location, like manufacturing ghost towns in the US with visa limitations and tax holidays. Creative restructuring is what economists might be doing as a competitive sport to combat the cataclysm of big deflation that is still in the "no one could have seen it coming" stage, with the over-levered debt economy coupled with paralyzed savers making zombie rather than animal spirit bets.

While Shiller deserves credit for organizing this session, the substance of the papers presented does in no way correspond to the present Situation in Euorpe - which is geographically closest to significant origins of refugee situations (Near East, Central Asia, Africa) and thus the "natural haven" for lage refugee numbers.
While it is important to add economic Analysis of Migration flows to the political Dimension, it is by no means clear that it should be economists who should regulate the flow of migrants (Sachs). The present Situation also belies Hatton's contention that refugees just look for safety and not for a specific Country.
"Usual" Migration flows in the past bear Little resemblance to the recent wave of refugees, but most likely also to potential flows arising from climate Change.
We Need political Solutions, backed up by economic Analysis. Political backlash against accepting refugees in most European countries threatens to destabilize political Systems even further. I doubt that economists alone have much to say about that.

Bob, I see viable solutions that should be implemented to address the problem once and for all. The lack of study is of no surprise to me. I have observed many of these instances. But, again, I think tackling the root is best. I would be interested in considering the project.

If your solution(s) involves a sustained inflow of migrants greater than approx 0.04% pa of host population then I suggest you forget it. In many locations the figure will be lower than that. The issue at the threashold is a political one not an economic one. Matters are then resolved at the ballot box and the vast majority of voters are not readers of economic papers or interested in them. They are however very aware of drops in real incomes developing over time due to movement in labour supply and demand and provision of heathcare and welfare services coming under stress. As changes in laboursupply and care provision are fundamental movements economics has nothing to do with it

There is really a very simple way to solve this problem. Just move a few thousand “refugees” into Mr. Shiller’s, Mr. Hatton’s, Mr. Tumen’s, Mr. Sach’s, etc. personal bastions of elite privilege. In approximately five minutes they will call them “invaders” and come up with 100s of reasons why any degree of force is justified in keeping them out.

These people aren’t “refugees”… They are (at best) economic migrants or more realistically foreign invaders. Europe has as much right to stop them as the people of the USSR had to oppose the Nazi invasion. It is probably no coincidence that Germany has been the driving force behind both attempts to destroy Europe.

The current invaders typically claim to be from Syria or some other war-torn nation. In real life they are from every country in the Middle East and Africa. “Syria” has simply become a magic word that illegal immigrants can use to annihilate borders (and ultimately entire nations). Even the minority actually fleeing conflict are economic migrants. They might have been genuine refugees when they left Syria for Turkey . When they paid some smuggler to take them to Greece they become economic migrants with no legitimate claim on Europe’s hospitality or even sympathy.

It is popular (so far) to claim that these people are really “refugees”. Real refugees are typically women and children. The illegals flooding into Europe are military age males. To anyone paying attention, that is a huge difference. Of course, who exactly is paying attention other than the women being sexually assaulted on German streets?

So far two Western countries (Israel and Australia) have shown how this invasion can be stopped. The solution is rather simple. Just say No. Israel has tall and well-guarded fences. Those that get past the fences are rounded up and removed. Australia uses its navy to stop illegal migrants, not “rescue” them. The first day Europe gets serious about stopping the invasion, it will end. The illegals have typically paid many thousands of dollars to smugglers to get them into Europe. Take away the profits (“refugee” status) and problem will be immediately solved.

Why hasn’t this been done? Europe is still in the death grip of the cosmopolitan elite who dream of a borderless Europe and a borderless world. Of course, the very same elites will use every force imaginable to protect their own gated communities, bastions of privilege, enclaves of rich, etc. In the end Europe has only two choices. First, Europe can overthrow the cosmopolitan elite, restore its borders, streets, and Democracy. Second, Europe can simply die. So far, Europe is following the second path.

I know that it sounds very cold hearted to suggest this but the greater is the aid given to refugees then the larger is the flow. The recent Syrian refugees flow to Europe is an example of the above. The refugee flow from Syria did not coincide with an escalation of the conflict. Actually just the opposite. The refugee flow to the EU took place during a lull in the conflict and it was simply "encouraged" by the promotion of an open border policy. I believe that a serious analysis of the flow of Syrian refugees to the EU will show that most were well educated, had access to financial resources ( the cost of the trip was at least 2000 Euros per person and practically all had a valid Syrian passport which is not such a common exactly a common article held by most Syrians. Furthermore it probably can be shown that a large number of these refugees came out the Syrian camps in Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey.
Ultimately the question that I have is simply the following: Open borders between two parties at totally different level of development will always encourage a flow from the less developed to the more developed and will actually act as a relief valve for the governors of the areas in dispute. I guess that I am asking whether helping refugees ends up in rewarding those that have created the problem in the first place?

Please Robert Shiller and fellow economists, don't try to help. You've done enough harm already with your lump-of-labor fallacy spam. Iatrogenic economics fuels xenophobia by parroting the meaningless truism that the "number of jobs is not fixed". Of course it's not fixed. Of course your empirical data will show growth in the NUMBER of jobs. But your numbers are tripe. People don't assume a fixed amount of work; people expect to get ahead. When wages stagnate, inequality soars and owning a house becomes a pipe dream ordinary folks are not going to be mollified by your "increases in labor supply lead to increases in labor demand" mantra. That's the old Say's Law that Keynes demolished 80 years ago -- the Zombie version of it.

I have seen one book that looks into the use of refugees as a weapon; it looks into the use of migration as a tool over the last fifty, or so, years. It might be worth defining the cause of the migration as a. possible, first step in prescribing a cure?

Shiller must be joking: "the fate of refugees seeking asylum in another land has largely been unstudied". Is this true for the US whose refugees were herded into reservations? For refugees outside the US two studies come immediately to mind: Collier's "Exodus" and "Exceptional people" by Goldin, Cameron and Balarajan. Both books have references.

A paper for nothing. It starts with something obvious: YES wars generate refugees!
Then an half truth and the management of the refugees by our countries. We have to welcome the low-skilled because our system is not fair.
In clear we must welcome low-skilled people to be gardener in my golf club and this will strengthen my position in the society.
This sound a very good political program that the middle class will love to vote for ...

This is just the usual nonsense written by people in ivory towers. When academic economists invite the supposedly wonderful third-world multitudes into their own homes, their own gated communities, their own bastions of privilege, they should be listened to. So far we have only the ravings of the protected elite about how everyone else's lives should be destroyed so the cosmopolitan elite can feel good about themselves (and get cheap servants).

Another important aspect, that often gets overlooked in migration, especially from sunnier latitudes closer to the equator, to cloudier latitudes father away from the equator e.g. Northern Europe and North America, is, that darker skinned persons often disproportionately suffer from depression and seasonal affective disorder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasonal_affective_disorder. This is caused by Vitamin D deficiency. This can make them easy prey and targets for political or religious radicals and radicalization, even when they are not discriminated against or do not have post traumatic stress, etc. This increases health care costs, and causes people affected to be less efficient on the job, etc.:
''The reduced pigmentation of light-skinned individuals may result in higher vitamin D levels[3] and that, because melanin acts like a sun-block, dark-skinned individuals, in particular, may require extra vitamin D to avoid deficiency at higher latitudes. African Americans are at a higher risk to be vitamin deficient due to their skin color and the melanin levels. The natural selection hypothesis suggests that lighter skin color evolved to optimise vitamin D production in extreme northern and southern latitudes.[55]'' - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypovitaminosis_D#Darker_skin_color

''Hypovitaminosis D is a risk factor for depression; some studies have found that low levels of vitamin D are associated with depressed feelings and are found in patients who have been diagnosed with depression.[18] Various studies on trial groups have been conducted to find a correlation between hypovitaminosis D and depression.'' - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypovitaminosis_D#Depression

Nothing like a “in your face” kind of problem to get people thinking. If the first two articles are anything to go by then taking a Bex and having a good lie down is all that is needed. As for the last two they just mimic the status quo which our leaders are prone to following, akin to Yes OK but no thanks.
A refugee problem will always exist while countries have people who think their needs trump others resulting in two year old behaviour escalating into anarchy. In the interests of peace and quiet in peoples lives it would be better to eventually discuss how to solve the cause of the problem than the adhoc solutions as we are experiencing now...

War refugees and other categories have legal right of asylum
Economic migrants ie those moving simply to gain a better living do not. Simply saying both are desperate does not and will not change entry qualification

50% of those turning up in the EU are economic migrants and many openly admit they are opportunistic

Apart from poverty one of the things driving economic migration is population growth. The issue facing the EU in reality is not just war refugees, it is economic migrants - and economic migrants will dwarf war refugees. A reproductive right in one country does not grant entry into another country. You will be looking at a colossal problem with people wanting to move and being denied access.

Furthermore there is the case put forward that raising poverty levels in these countries will 'keep' them there when the is the equally viable case that increased access to money will simply fund the desire to migrate to a developed country as the pull is more than income, it is healthcare and education. So it is not going away, poverty or no poverty its not going away. Simply saying somehow it has to be dealt with is not going to work, barriers to entry both physical and non physical will go up.

It is entirely obvious that is going to happen. So the issue is who is going to be turned away and many many will be turned away

For the record I oppose bombing in Syria and I opposed Iraq and Afghanistan armed intervention

As far as demograhics go, Germany 'needs' 8 million young workers but they have to be skilled and educated, Germany is a highly structured industrialise nation. Germany cannot cope with 1 million migrants in 2015 50% of whom wil be deported as failed claims. Furhtermore this 'demographic' issue is ongoing whilst 50% of the Southern EU youth are in long term unemployment so it is not a simple interchange issue.

Refugee integration and joblessness is an issue and todate a rough figure would be 4 out of 5 refugess in developed countries are jobless longterm

Your original comment of its the usual 'Yes OK but no thanks.' simply does not look at the problem or how it can be addressed

@Steve Hurst
Not sure what you mean by economic migrants when it is about refugees in general. Those people that need to leave their country for obvious reasons like now in the middle east where there is a full blown civil war occurring and it does not help when outsiders who think they know better decide to bomb the place indiscriminately: someone likely to get killed. Also do not remember anything about African women’s reproductive rights. What I do remember is countries recently being upset that there was not enough children being born to sustain their decadent lifestyle in the near future. Also remember a few countries also trying to bribe their own young women to have children. Deriding African woman’s reproductive rights is a bit of a one sided argument.

Then again if you have decided that my past sins (opinions) need addressing, then by all means, full steam ahead.

Youre not getting it Aale. War refugees is one thing and economic migrants is another. As is the population explosion notably in Africa where the reproduction rate per woman is often 5, 6 or 7 kids and culturally they will not use birth control. As for discussion. Discussion implies using facts and facts get edited in this game. It is often suggested that migrants are going to be useful on the German labour market but experience says they wont be. By all means deal with humanitarian issues but stop pretending there is an upside bigger than it really is. Stop pretending that relatively small countries compared to the problem can culturally and economically absorb massive flows of migrants, it isnt going to happen. As for your earlier comment - 'why not run to the perceived wealthiest countries'. They are not even wanting to run to the wealthiest countries, they are wanting to run to the economically hot cities within those countries. Physically they cannot fit there. Instead of discussion of the problems we get discussion of mythical solutions which imply cultural intergation, utilisation of mainly unskilled migrate labour in a the face of decline in that labour category and building millions of houses when there is already a housing shortage - when the reality is there is not a shred of evidence these complex tasks can be acheived after decades of empirical evidence. If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem. Anybody understating the task is not part of the solution

In response to Semih Tumen of the Central Bank of Turkey
, correct me if I'm wrong, but it is illegal for Syrian or any other refugees to work in Turkey! They are not adding to the labour force. Perhaps they are adding to consumption, but not to labour force, unless it's the unregistered black market.

Then why are all 'refugees' in Europe seemingly running to the wealthiest countries in Europe? Germany, Sweden and the United Kingdom (if they can get there - number undocumented due to political sensitivities around migrants).

And why not run to the perceived wealthiest countries? I certainly would after an upheaval experienced by them. They will eventually find out it is not all a bed of roses but compared to what they have now, it is.

Quite, and 50% of the current arrivals are assessed as being economic migrants as well as passing thru safe country after safe country

The broad underlying suggestion in the article appears to be something like the latest IMF brainwave which is to propose a cut in minimum wages and subsidise migrant employment. There is already a very strong case for social disruption around the corner with an entire generation of youth facing longterm unemployment in the West. Its going to go down well to both cut wages and give subsidy to incomers when none is given to the natives

What is never accepted in these pro migrant studies is the fact that everyone cannot come so there has to be control and refusal

Just take a look at population growth forecasts and where it is due to occur and where they are going to head

Can Mr Shiller please explain why this gift of a migrant influx is due to cost Germany alone an estimated 21 Billion euro per annum off into the future. Yes this will 'stimulate' the local economy but so what the money has to come from reserves and the cost is ongoing.

Can Mr Sachs who wants a commitment to admitting low skilled migrants explain how this sits alongside the problem of native youth unemployment in the Southern EU countries of 50%, part of a relentless and ongoing uptick in youth joblessness in the West, without causing problems. 'Desperate' migrants who are now in some cases heading back home because the streets are not paved with gold, nothing opportunistic there then. Hint - when you have migrants - including some of those in transit - complaining there are 'too many' migrants and some are faux, maybe there is a problem

Furthermore can this bunch of economists report on the reality of longterm joblessness amonst refugee populations - in the 80 to 90 % range - in any number of developed countries - where the job market simply does not want to utilise them. Further - how they propose to address this without preferential treatment for refugees which will not be acceptable to native populations

Finally can Mr Shiller explain why anybody bothered to create borders, passports and control measures if unhindered movement of populations is such a good idea, seeing as those features have been in place for millennia and usually measures that are unnecessary are discontinued. Oh, by the way why pick 60million as a figure, its already out of date 240million is the latest figure picked out of the air. But hey why worry about a small detail like that, the world and his wife and kids can come on down

So Mr Shiller, dont be surprised when you go home and find migrants in the attic or under the stairs in your property - paying no rent and eating the food out of your larder with limited future job prospects. This is a benefit, your research tells you that

In the UK there was a report produced on behalf of the House of lords, widely used by pro migration media with an identical message, basically that immigration is good, and fears unfounded. One small problem, turning to the housing impact section, it was empty! The is an immense housing crisis in the UK due to not building 3 Birmingham's worth of housing and infrastructure to house population increase, rents are through the roof and it totally destroys lives. I am afraid that the pro immigration economists have a very low reputation in my eyes, and are far too prone to seek politically correct fame, rather than sound and balanced methodology.

Consider just one country - Nigeria. The UN predicts it will have a population bigger than the USA by 2050. Unless food production expands at the same rate, highly unlikely, those people will be on the move - probably heading for Europe. I expect somebody will do a paper explaining this should be welcomed by Europe. Somehow I doubt it

This is fine theory., but it is the guest lecturer on the Titanic continuing to talk high-sounding idealism. The situation in Poland and with Trump suggest the West is about to blow up. Without any question, people think that an infinite supply of labor contribute to a decline of wages for 90% according to the Fed over a 7 year where Wall Street profitted by a tripling of the makret.

The alienation is now explosive and what will it be if we are completing a huge head and shoulders and heading to a DOW of around 11,000 where Shiller thinks it is fairly valued. That reduction of inegalitarianism is not likely to benefit anyone except the shorts.

There is only one lesson. These refugees were totally created by the craziest foreign policy the United States has ever followed. Saddam, Kaddafi, and Sadat are the modern Elizabeth I, a very progressive figure in English history. They were secular and stabilizing so we overthrew them (or tried to overthrow them in Syria) and cut short the progress to creatte death and destruction. We treat the anti-Islamic Putin as an enemy rather than an ally.

More will die from our mistakes the last dozen years than a dozen ISILs would kill. Shiller and other economists should worry about building the lifeboats and getting people on them, not things like this than, alas, are now a second-rank problem.

I am extremely grateful, that the issue of ''brain drain'' is a part of this desperately needed conversation and discussion on immigration. We need this holistic approach and perspective, to fully understand the negative global effects, especially high-skill emigration/drain has on the political and economic stability and success of developing nations.
My sincere thanks to Professors Shiller and Sachs.
In the United States, the politically most contentious issue around both legal and illegal immigration I see, is the ''birthright citizenship'' aka ''anchor baby'' issue, which is exploited equally by both poor and wealthy legal and illegal immigrants and visitors to the United States. Unless this loophole is closed, I see much reluctance and animosity by natives and long-time U.S. legal immigrants/residents alike, towards ''foreigners'' and refugees in general, because ''birthright citizenship'' fundamentally undermines the understanding and concept of fairness and hard work to earn and deserve U.S. citizenship. It cannot be that every child born to a young Syrian refugee family on U.S. soil, who are already generously receiving asylum here in the USA, also automatically receives U.S. citizenship. This is a problem unique to the USA, and not an issue in Germany or Sweden for example with refugees, as far as I know.
Also it is a major security liability/risk for the United States, as ''birthright citizen'' Anwar al-Awlaki proved: ''In 2010, "there were 4.5 million U.S.-born children whose parents were unauthorized [illegal]," according to the Pew Hispanic Center (Pew Hispanic Research Trends Project, "A Nation of Immigrants: A Portion of the 40 Million, Including 11 Million Unauthorized," Pew Hispanic Center, Jan. 29, 2013.) The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) has estimated that nearly 200,000 children are born annually "to foreign women admitted as visitors, that is, tourists, students, guest workers, and other non-immigrant categories."'' - https://www.numbersusa.com/solutions/reform-birthright-citizenship
All U.S. citizens under the age of 30, born to non-U.S. citizens or non-U.S. permanent residents on U.S. soil/territory, should have their U.S. citizenship retroactively revoked, and just given temporary resident rights or temporary visa privileges.
Ending ''birthright citizenship'' will restore confidence in the fairness and merit of the U.S. immigration system and process, and make immigration a politically less controversial issue.

Further, importantly to consider is the following data for Europe: ''Data from numerous studies show that the more ethnically diverse a society the greater the risk of conflict and, conversely, the more difficult it is to forge unity. Civil conflict is less likely in more homogeneous societies. Academic researchers have attempted to quantify the risk.

In the 1990s a global study by Rudolf Rummel at the University of Hawaii measured how 109 variables contributed to collective violence of the extreme variety – guerrilla and civil war – between 1932 and 1982; that’s a 50 year period. He found that one fifth of the variation in collective violence was caused by just one variable, the number of ethnic groups within the society. Conflict was made more intense when the antagonistic parties had different religions. [ii] That finding is obviously relevant to the present situation where Muslims are flooding into a largely Christian and secular Europe.'' - http://socialtechnologies.com.au/germanys-jeopardy-could-the-immigrant-influx-end-european-civilization/

Mr. Shillers call for more research is great. It would be even better if he did not cherry-picked results from the papers.

For instance, on the effects on the labour market, Shillers only mentions the positive (0.46%) effect on the formal sector, while he doesn't mention the negative effect (-2.26%) on the informal sector, for a net decline of (-1.8%). Looking at the paper those displaced are often the most vulnerable and it also drives women out of the labour force. How Shiller can make this into a positive story is beyond me.

A problem with the paper of Timothy J. Hatton is that refugees keep their original (economic/safety) status regardless of their situation in transit countries. Is a Syrian refugee still fleeing for safety after living for three years in Istanbul? Can you still say that safety is the main reason for migration if refugees do not want to stay in Austria but travel to Sweden?

The problem with refugees and migrants is the same as it has always been. The world is divided into rich countries and poor countries. Those from the poor countries want to live in the rich ones. With modern communications now widespread, many more of them realise the lousy deal that fate has given them. In order to accommodate them n the rich countries, the rich (relatively) have to accept the fact that they will have to be poorer. And the populations of the rich countries, who control their politics with democratic votes, don't agree to be poorer. That is the problem, and nothing other than forcible compulsion will change it.

New Comment

Pin comment to this paragraph

After posting your comment, you’ll have a ten-minute window to make any edits. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks.

Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. If your email exists in our system, we'll send you an email with a link to reset your password. Please note that the link will expire twenty-four hours after the email is sent. If you can't find this email, please check your spam folder.